I was working outside yesterday and listening to my MP3 player. On it were a few Bob Dylan songs including "Talkin' World War III Blues". Several thoughts struck me. One was that, despite all the doomsayers talking about how the world is ending, in the 1960s we stood a pretty good chance of that actually happening. Another thought was that most kids today never heard of "Conelrad" or the "Duck and Cover" song. http://www.conelrad.com/index.php I found this interesting; Rita Hayworth's picture on "Able", the Bikini Atoll bomb : http://conelrad.blogspot.com/2013/08/atomic-goddess-revisited-rita-hayworths.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=947tGsiv4lQ
There were quite a few moments where WW3 was quite possible - or the Cold War to escalate. Most memorable to me was in the early 90s actually, when a NASA rocket flew over Moscow. I don't remember, but I think it malfunctioned or something and took a wrong orbit or something like that. Anyways, they gave Yeltsin only 120 seconds to order a nuclear counter attack. The Russian radars picked up the rocket and they thought that the US was abusing the unstable government and weakened Russian position for a nuclear attack. Very disturbing for us was also when the Russia released SU-plans in the case of the cold war escalating. Two nuclear bombs would instantly target Copenhagen and Vienna. The first to insure that the Russian navy could leave into the Atlantic, and the second to create a highway from the east-block to Germany. Guess they didn't think much of Austria's neutrality...
Unfortunately it goes both ways. It's not like the US respects neutrality or they would not attack specific targets within Pakistan - just to use a more recent example. God knows what beautiful plans the CIA or NSA had made for Europe if the Cold War would escalate. We don't know if they planed on flattening some cities as well.
A fair point but have you ever heard about "plausible deniability"? It goes both ways. Pakistan is teetering on a revolution with Islamic radicals holding the highlands and deeply entrenched in some cities. Do you think the air defense radar turned itself the night SEAL Team Six paid Osama bin Laden a visit? Sure, the Pakistanis "complain" about the US killing radical Islamic Jihadists in their backyard, but does anyone really think the Pakistani government resents us killing their enemies? They're paying lip-service to it to save face with their own citizens. The world is a dangerous place and it's important for everyone involved to be clear with the other players about what side they are on even if that answer isn't the same one printed in the newspapers or on TV.
Like I said: Just to name a recent example. You could look at our (and by that I mean EU + US) involvement in Somalia, Mali, etc. etc. That is just recent. I don't know if superpowers really have ever respected the neutrality of countries. Whether it's the cold war or not. Look at this list and keep in mind that the last declaration of war from the US was against Germany in WW2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations And the list with European troops getting involved is long as well. Egypt and the Suez crisis comes instantly to mind, where the Egyptians had to fight to get the Europeans out.
Why do you leave Russia out of that equation? Just curious. As for Mali, they had a coup and were in the midst of civil war when France was invited in by the interim government. Somalia's government is in name only and were in the midst of genocide. The US was there as part of a UN force and Un Security Resolutions 733 and 746. Neither were "neutral" nor peaceful. Are you trying to say larger and/or more powerful countries throw their weight around? I agree. Are you trying to say the US is the most evil country in history and the world would be peaceful if it were destroyed? Then I strongly disagree.
Because Russia tends to be the recipient of international critique, especially historically, and people tend to forget that our own governments are not much better. The countries with labels like "peace loving" and "respecting international law" tend to ignore these peace loving and international law agreements whenever it fits them geopolitically. Especially if they have a superpower status. Right now the US is the world's only superpower and it is therefore most likely that the US will abuse their power. It doesn't have to happen, but it's most likely... If you live in a small country like I do, you basically don't matter. That's the point I was trying to make really. Whatever is decided in the countries who are the superpowers will happen, whether you are neutral or not. I remember in the late 90s when the US with the UN started to attack Serbia, they would fly over Slovenia because the planes tended to be in Germany. The UN or US official went to the Slovene government and asked to use Slovene airspace, which was declined. The response the Slovene representative got was "if we need it, we will take it."
You've been around here longer than me, so I guess you would know. I didn't know that. I primarily only see what's in the news and they tend to blame Russia much and never look at themselves.
The "Blame Game" is as old as politics itself. Still, I see a lot of people blaming the US for the actions of others such as France in Mali or the UN in Somalia.
If you read my post again, you will see that I didn't target only the US with the actions in Somalia or Mali. The mess in Somalia is specifically a mess created by us Europeans. In only one example did I specifically point out the US as ignoring the neutrality of another country: Pakistan. So don't feel attacked as an American, because I'm blaming everyone across the board. No country these days declares war anymore, which I think is a travesty, because there is then also no official peace agreement either. Now it's only an operation and the operation finishes, but that still means there can be air strikes like in Iraq now. This entire thing of a war threat has gone out of hand I think, because wars don't start nor end anymore. You got to worry if two major powers get involved on opposite ends, if the unofficial war is started, will it ever be concluded? I don't understand why war was more civilized 100 years ago. You would think that it was better now. I would have to research if there has been a war in the 20th century with more military casualties than civilian casualties. I think the last war of that sort actually is more than 100 years back. Worrying really...
In the end the nuclear arsenals of the Cold War may have saved millions of lives. Without the threat of those ultimate weapons it would have been far more likely that the US and the USSR would have openly engaged in conventional conflict. As it is we spent the entire time fighting each other via proxies like in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Fair enough. That is positive indeed. It is still worrying I feel because wars don't start or end anymore. And thankfully the major powers didn't go to war with each other since WW2. But what would happen if they do?
War between nuclear powers would be so detrimental to both sides, they wouldn't do it. The MAD principle works. As noted in other threads, wars and conflicts will continue as long as we are competing for resources. If unlimited or nearly unlimited energy resources could be developed, most of the reasons for war would go away.
